The manifesto /Ttreatment of occupational diseases / etc

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jun 27, 2011, 4:32:46 AM6/27/11

Petition to the Government of Canada

Cell Tower Petition

See the attached petition document.

The petition is to the federal government to change current legislation on how and where cell towers are erected. It was tabled and presented to the federal government in March, 2011, but signatures will be accepted on an ongoing basis. We need to get as many signatures as possible nationwide for it to be effective.

-petition should be printed out on legal size 8" x 14" paper if possible. If that's not possible, 8" x 11" paper will do, there's just less room for signatures. Each page must remain in format submitted.

-signatures should appear in blue ball point ink. Only original signatures can be submitted, no photocopies. You may print and fill as many pages as you like.

-filled petitions to be sent to:

Matthew Kellway, M.P
House of Commons
Parliament Hill
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

*no postage necessary



BC Hydro is stoking reefer madness

The Province

BC Hydro's answer to the problem: spend $1 billion on smart meters to stop pot-producing power poachers. It's hard to know where to begin explaining how screwed up and illogical this is. But first, let's review Hydro's recent history of estimating ...


Concerns raised over safety, pricing

Victoria Times Colonist

Kendall said a recent study from the World Health Organization's International Agency on Research on
Cancer that labelled the electromagnetic fields caused by cellphones and the like as "a possible human carcinogen," suggested the EMF level is ...

Response to above article:

Dear Editor,

Duffy quotes Provincial Health officer Dr Perry Kendall. I don't think there is any convincing evidence that the levels [of (rfr) radio frequency radiation] that we are being exposed to are in fact causing harm. I find this statement strange as there are thousands of peer reviewed studies that show adverse health effects as a result of exposure at the levels experienced when immersed in a WI-FI hot spot, or when using a cell phone, and when you head is just inches from a so called smart meter. For starters I ask readers to visit;

Therein you will find what is considered by scientists as credible evidence that rfr at everyday levels of exposure as being harmful.

Kendall claims according to Hydro the meters are only reporting back, on average, less than a minute a day; it is not 24/7. I ask readers to visit and click on to the video of a Smart meter while operating. You will see it is operating 24/7.

Kendall claims that the recent designation by the World Health Organizations, International Agency on Research on Cancer that placed radio frequency radiation as a possible carcinogen as being based upon one study with weak evidence. This statement is also strange. The committee themselves said. The working group considered hundreds of articles. I recomend visiting the official IARC web site at to read their full statement.

The one finding that Kendall refers to was from the Interphone study. This study was included in the IARC analysis. I also find it strange he not mention a publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages. A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.

One would think a medical doctor would consider this as credible evidence. Not absolute proof perhaps but sufficient to warrant some precautionary guidelines.

Kendall also claims that the possible association between mobile phone use and cancer risk warrents further study [the consensus of public health practiconers is that the current exposure levels to EMF's does not constitute a threat to the health of the public].

This statement is also strange given the division of opinions within the public health community on this issue. Dr. John Blatherwick, ex chief medical health officer of the city of Vancouver BC is shown in the link below in a BC Hydro information meeting in March as saying, Safety Code 6 is grossly out of date because it is based upon tissue heating. The health effects we are discussing are a result of what is called non thermal effects. He claims safety Code Six needs to be updated and upgraded.

Indeed, Dr, Shelia Basrur, Kendall's successor in the position as medial health officer of the City of Toronto called for guidelines to rfr exposure 100 times stricter than Canada's standards.

In a London Telegraph article on May 21, 2007, the chairman of Great Briton's Health Protection Agency called for a review of WI FI risks in schools. [Speaking about his review of the evidence for health risks linked to mobile phones and masts published in the year 2000, Sir William said: "There may be changes, for example in cognitive function... there were some indications that there may be cancer inductions... there were some molecular biology changes within the cell and these were issues that we had to bear in mind."]

The above statements seem to contradict Kendall's claims of unanimity amongst heath professionals that the rfr such as that emitted from a wireless hydro meter is safe. In my opinion the opposite seems to be the case.

Walter Patrick McGinnis co chair EM Radiation Health Alliance of BC

iPads Consume 400% More Wi-Fi Data Than Other Mobile Device


(More data, more radiation, more danger?)


Informant: Martin Weatherall

[ ]

petition to Government of Canada.pdf
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages